Campbell Printing-Press Co. v. Thorp
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Michigan
‘At Law. On exceptions to referee’s report. Plaintiff agreed to sell to the defendants certain printing-presses, rollers, and other property connected with a printing establishment, and guarantied that the presses should be “free from defective material or workmanship, and should do their work satisfactorily. ” The referee, to whom the case was referred,'found that neither of the three presses was satisfactory to defendants; nor did they do their work reasonably well; yet he…
Read the full summary
‘At Law. On exceptions to referee’s report. Plaintiff agreed to sell to the defendants certain printing-presses, rollers, and other property connected with a printing establishment, and guarantied that the presses should be “free from defective material or workmanship, and should do their work satisfactorily. ” The referee, to whom the case was referred,'found that neither of the three presses was satisfactory to defendants; nor did they do their work reasonably well; yet he found as a conclusion of law that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the whole agreed price, less a small sum,…
1Opinion of the Court
BROWN, J.,
(after stating the facts as above.) The correctness of the referee’s ruling depends largely upon the proper construction of the guaranty that the presses should be free from defects of material or workmanship, and should do their work satisfactorily. There is no doubt of the general proposition that where one party agrees to do a piece of work to the satisfaction of another, the excellence of which work is wholly or in part a matter of taste, such, for instance, as a portrait, a photograph or bust, a suit of clothes, a musical instrument, or a piece of furniture, the buyer may…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- City of Brooklyn v. . Brooklyn City R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Brown v. FosterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1873
- Duplex Safety Boiler Co. v. . GardenNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Zaleski v. ClarkSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1876
- Walter A. Wood Reaping & Mowing Machine Co. v. SmithMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Mulcahy v. DieudonneSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1908
- Livesley v. JohnstonOregon Supreme Court · 1904
- Sax v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1900
- Fullington v. Ozark Poultry Supply Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- A. S. Cameron Steam Pump Works v. Lubbock Light & Ice Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1914
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.